Talk:Federation Council

Contents

The picture of the exterior of the Federation Council is clearly in San Fransisco (you can see the Golden Gate Bridge) but the Council Chambers
are in Paris.

The idea that the Council meets in Paris is apocrypha. The novels are *not* canonical. Whereas the exterior shot used in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is. It would stand to reason that if TPTB wanted to establish the council as meeting in Paris, they would've showed us a scene of Paris. It is possible that the Council only meets in San Francisco during a Starfleet related emergency, for a "special session" (such as on the anniversary of the signing of the Federation charter), or for a wide variety of other reasons... but the fact to the matter is that's all speculation until shown otherwise on the screen.

Here's another theory, though. Why would a starfleet officer be judged by the Federation Council? It's the job of JAG, the court martial, to do this. If an Admiral breaks the rules nowadays, he is not judged by the NATO Security Council either, for instance.

That way, the location makes sense. San Francisco is the location of the Starfleet court martial. The judge is refered to as President, but there are two possibilities:
a) it is the President of the Federation because he has the right to be a judge or
b) in general judges are refered to as president of the court.
There's no reason why the Federation Council would judge Admiral Kirk for breaking rules. This has to be done by a court.

Assuming a U.S. model (although we probably shouldn't be that ethnocentric), technically the power to remove high ranking officers is granted to the military courts by President in his capacity as Commander in Chief, while the laws used to justify that removal is codified by Congress in the UCMJ. There's a subtle difference between the roles there. So if the Federation works in the same way in terms of seperation of powers, the President might have the right to insist on presiding over Kirk's case personally.

05-06-06 Just an addition to my own comments after having seen the movie again, as well as Season 4 of DS9. Jaresh-Inyo certainly acted like he had the legal authority to remove Admiral Leyton from his post. Of course, Leyton was plotting a coup d'etat at the time, but that doesn't seem to be related to whether the President has the power...theoretically.

From the movie, it's also very clear the person in question is the "President of the United Federation of Planets", as he said so in the distress call sent from Earth.

Even though this seems to have finished, the Federation Council is established as residing in San Francisco in the "Federation History" graphic seen in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II". So that settles that ;) - AJ Halliwell 03:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the same graphic that has erroneous dates for First Contact and the launch of Cochrane's warp ship? And that lists Colonel Green as being a WW3 figure when he was actually infamous for his post-WW3 actions according to "Demons?" And that says that WW3 was about genetic engineering, when there's no such canonical indication? I'd hardly call that a reliable source. -- Sci 20:12 22 SEPT 2006 UTC

Everything seen on that graphic that was not contadicted by dialogue or other more concrete evidence (like a clearer visual) is considered canon... that is, of course, until those points are contradicted, in which case we can just ignore the graphic altogether. By the way, it was TOS: "The Savage Curtain" that established that Green was active in the early part of the 21st century and known for attacking enemies during treaty negotiations, suggesting he played a part in WWIII. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Is the giant hamster on the wheel in the Enterprise-D master system display canonical as well? No offense, but when it comes to graphics, Memory Alpha's canon policy is nuts. -- Sci 04:10 23 AUG 2006 UTC

If there was a giant hamster, then dammit, that hamster is canon. ;) Of course, little jokes like that are taken with a grain of salt. Personally, I would completely understand if MA began dismissing the in-jokes and what-not. But this graphic wasn't full of jokes, so's all good.

Seems to me that the logical thing to do is to only accept as canonical info from graphics that are really easy to read, and certainly not something that the producers themselves have referred to as placeholders not meant to stand up to scrutiny. -- [[User:Sci|Sci] 04: 21 23 SEPT 2006 UTC

And once again, because disproving apocrypha is a pastime... >D - Voyager's "In the Flesh" lists "The Federation Council" first among the things Species 8472 recreated in their "San Francisco" recreation. Also, take note on the number of councilors. - AJ Halliwell 08:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but we never learned if that was the Federation Council building, or if there might not be multiple ones. It's possible that the San Francisco site, for instance, is an alternate meeting site used when the Palais is unavailable for some reason. ;) -- Sci 20:14 22 SEPT 2006 UTC

"In the Flesh" did not reveal definitively and clearly that the Federation Council is located only in San Francisco. It revealed that a structure known as the Federation Council building was there. There is no information on how often this is used, and there are any number of possibilities based on what it presents -- the Council may convene in multiple cities throughout Earth, for instance; the San Francisco site may be an alternate location used when another, primary, location is unavailble. Or it may be their main location.

We don't know. Until or unless new canonical information on the topic is revealed, however, it is unfair for Memory Alpha to impose one specific interpretation of the facts; the most accurate thing we can say is that in 2286, the Council convened in San Francisco and there is a building there that houses them. That's it. -- Sci 02:55 3 OCT 2006 UTC

Since the entire scenario was set in San Francisco (if I remember correctly), that means that the Federation Council was indeed located in San Francisco. --From Andoria with Love 03:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As I noted above, one could just as easily interpret the scene as meaning that there are several locations across Earth where the Council meets and that San Francisco has one of them. It's not explicit enough to establish SF as the Council's only or even primary location; all that we know is that it is a location. The article ought to be dealing with canonical facts, not specific interpretations. -- Sci 03:18 3 OCT 2006 UTC

Nothing's more practical than a theory to debunk other theories, eh? ;)

In some sense, I think you've hit on an important point. Of course it's interpretative and based on different contexts. Is it ever not? However, that's why there are at least two different ST encyclopedia sites: a Beta-site and an Alpha-site (probably more that I'm not aware of). Bottom line. There are a million feasible theories as to how the novels might logically fit. In my opinion, some of them quite reasonable and sound (some of the novels are great reading, don't get me wrong), while others are more far-fetched.

But as far as the primary source rules at MA are concerned though, they don't really even exist within this context. That is, there's no other point of reference to compare against what AJ, Shran, and company has correctly pointed out. The Palais simply does not *exist* in primary source material, strictly speaking. And there has never been any mention of the Council meeting/being anywhere else except as clearly stated in ST: The Voyage Home and ST: Voyager. Thus, while you can throw out all kinds of theories at the Alpha folks (and Paramount might eventually decide to use one of them, who knows), I think that misses the point.

It would be like if I said "Grand Nagus Zek likes chocolate ice cream", and then dared you to prove me wrong. Now, there's nothing in the primary source material that says he doesn't like chocolate ice cream as the topic never came up on the show, so it's a perfectly feasible theory...but come on, if theories are the only thing you've got, it can get pretty convoluted. - UFPUS. Oct. 15, 2006.

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not trying to find a way to fit the Palais from Articles -- or, for that matter, Federa-Terra from Crisis on Centaurus -- into the canon. I'm just trying to point out that the canonical evidence does not automatically mean that the Council meets only in San Francisco, and that the only really accurate thing we can say is that there is one site for them in San Francisco that was used in 2286. Saying definitively that they do meet there and only there is itself a hypothesis -- it fits the evidence, but so do other hypothesises, and, therefore, it does not deserve special consideration above others.

Consequently, the logical thing is to note that the Council convened in San Francisco in 2286 at a site that was apparently still around in 2275. -- Sci 19:29 21 OCT 2006

Actually neither is canon since it turns out that we do not know for sure if each planet "elects" its representative like Bajor would, or if they are appointed. I do not know whether or not there is any canon reference to the Federation Council "senators" being refered to as Ambassadors but was under the impression this was so. Did Sarek not have a seat on the council? His title was Ambassador. Federation 01:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's possible he held a cabinet like position, remember how the Federation President conferred with him in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. (This is also a bad example, based on how he confered with the Romulan Ambassador) (This is just a random thought that has nothing to do with this discussion, but it's just popped into my mind, could Sarek have been the Vice president? Probably not) Also, I don't believe ambassadors are the Federation councilmen. Lwaxana Troi certainly didn't seem like someone Betazed elected, and it seems to me being an ambassador and serving on the Federation council would be like being the United States ambassador to France, and serving on the Senate; two full time jobs would be difficult on different continents, but different sectors? -AJHalliwell 02:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess it depends. Are Ambassador's Ambassadors to the Federation? If so it would seem like the good old UN model. Sentators on the UN are called Ambassadors and each country decides them by their own method. Also given the Federation is a "Federation" it would seem strange that the planets would have Ambassadors to each other. It would be like Conneticut having an Ambassador to Texas. Even in the commonwealth of the Nations, Ambassadors are referred to as "Commissioners" since the commonwealth doesn't see its members as truly seperate countries. It is indeed interesting but I don't think we'll ever know if Sarek was VP. I actually doubt it. So here we are, back at square one. Lots of speculation and no canon answers. Federation 21:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately, the question boils down to whether the members of the Federation Council are primarily regarded as being delegates or trustees -- and, frankly, whether or not they are legislators in the true sense. Representatives to the United Nations of UN Member States, for instance, are not considered to be genuine legislators; they are ambassadors because they represent the wills of their governments, and may not take a stance that differs from their governments' stances; if they do, they are fired and replaced. A Senator or MP, on the other hand, while he/she does represent his/her constituency, is not considered to be an employee of that constituency, but, rather, of the national government; they are trustees rather than delegates. Thus, if the Government of the State of Ohio objects to a stance that James Smith, United States Senator from Ohio, takes, the Ohio Governor and Ohio General Assembly cannot have him removed from office -- he does not work for the Ohio government, but, rather, for the federal government, and he is not chosen by the Government of the State of Ohio, but, rather, by the people of the State of Ohio. Basically -- an ambassador represents a government, and must represent the policies developed by members of that government, while a true legislator represents the general people within a government and can develop policy him/her-self. I doubt that the Federation Council could be as effective as it is if its members had to go and get permission from their home worlds' governments for every vote. -- Sci 18:12 30 MAY 2007 UTC

I just thought that it was worthy to note that the Federation appears to have a cabinet and posts are referred to as secretaries like the USA model. Wasn't the dude on Deep Space K-7 like the undersecretary or something? There's been various mention of this here and there. I wonder if there should be an article about this, though we don't know much about how these positions are decided either. Federation 22:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just read this novel, and while it's not canon, I liked it a lot. I didn't actually realize there was onscreen evidence for the Council being in San Fransisco... Anyway, this sentence in the article strikes me as odd: "In the novel, the Council itself determines who may run for the office of the presidency". Does anyone know where this was supposed to be in the book? As far as I remember, the president is elected in a federation-wide election, and presumably any citizen can run for the office. I don't remember any mention of the council approving potential candidates!? --Ammaletu 00:30, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that features in the novel A Time for War, A Time for Peace, also by DeCandido, which was released the year before Articles and covered Nan Bacco's election. The full Council determines who is qualified to run for President on the basis of anonymous petitions for a given individual's candidacy. -- Sci 01:30 1 OCT 2009 UTC

Thanks for clarifying this. I just found the same information on the UFP president page and was about to edit the page, but you beat me by some minutes. ;-) --Ammaletu 01:45, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Since the script of ENT: "Zero Hour" calls the large hall in that episode the "Federation Council hall," should info about the Federation's founding be presented in the bg info section, the in-universe part or both? --Defiant 09:59, June 11, 2012 (UTC)